The executive order to create a National Counter Terrorism Center, or NCTC, that would integrate all intelligence related to terrorism, analyze the information and plan responses, has met staunch opposition from chief ministers since it was passed in early February.

The center, which has been championed by the Home Minister P. Chidambaram, would have the power to search and arrest, and work under the Intelligence Bureau, India’s internal intelligence gathering agency.

Chief ministers of several states objected on the grounds that it would encroach on state governments’ jurisdiction. Most of the opponents are from political parties that oppose the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance that controls India’s central government.

While levels of violence in many parts of India have fallen in recent months, the country continues to be home to armed insurgents in Kashmir, the North East states and central and eastern India. The 2008 attacks on Mumbai exposed weaknesses in the country’s response to large-scale terrorism and international attacks, including huge delays in deploying central anti-terror forces.

India Ink asked several experts and veteran security officials for their opinions about the creation of the NCTC. Lightly edited answers are below:

Vikram Sood, former chief of India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing:

I think NCTC should be an independent body with no operational role. It should not have any powers to arrest. It should only be a coordinating body. It should be an independent body and should not be the part of any other organization.

I do not give much importance to the opposition by the chief ministers. This is just political shouting.

Ajai Sahni, executive director, South Asia Terrorism Portal, a New Delhi-based research group:

NCTC is a lousy idea and its implementation is even worse. Our problem is not the deficit of power but the deficit of capacities and capabilities, which is lacking in our counter terrorism actions. What we need is an effective national database on terrorism which can be shared in real time. The Multi Agency Center or MAC was created in 2009 for the same purposes but it could not deliver even after three and half years.

Our principal problem lies, not in architecture, but in manpower, materials and execution. We have eviscerated institutions over decades, and now believe that the solution lies in creating layer upon layer of meta institutions to monitor, coordinate and oversee this largely dysfunctional apparatus.

NCTC will definitely improve the capacity and capabilities of our counter-terrorism efforts. Giving it operational powers will bring greater transparency and greater accountability. Without these powers the intelligence inputs have become routine bureaucratic affairs.

By doing so you are not taking away any powers from the state. All the central agencies are working in states and exercise these powers in a non-transparent manner. With these powers the central agencies can act much faster on actionable intelligence by calling the necessary support.

For example, in the Mumbai attack case, in 2008, state authorities waited for National Security Guards (NSG) teams to do the operation. The central agencies can do such operations on their own with new orders.
To develop actionable intelligence is a very slow process. It takes one year, two years or three years, and it takes much more logistical support. Because of the lack of operational powers, central agencies now depend upon each other.

So NCTC is a positive step forward. The problem is in the way it was announced unilaterally. The central government is a weak government and chief ministers are opposing it to make political capital out of it. The central government should have done more consultations with the states.

J. N. Rai, former additional director of the Intelligence Bureau:

There is no illegality in the NCTC order. As per the Unlawful Activities Act, the central government can pass such an order. In practice, the power of search, arrest and operation is not a good idea. Even now 90 percent of counter-terrorism operations are done on the basis of input from central agencies, and states cooperate fully in those operations.

By giving the central agencies the power to search and arrest you make them more vulnerable and open and visible. That may hurt the intelligence-gathering operations. It does not suit the culture of the Intelligence Bureau. IB people will appear in courts and in the media and it will not be good for them.

The problem is political. The central government should have consulted the state governments in advance. They fear that central government may misuse these powers in certain situations.

Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India, in a letter to chief ministers on Feb. 21:

As you may be aware, the idea of such a center has been under consideration by Government since the Group of Ministers report of 2001 suggested a Joint Task Force on Intelligence and the report was accepted by the Government of the day.

In forming the NCTC, it is not the Government’s intent in any way to affect the basic features of the Constitutional provisions and allocation of powers between the States and the Union. The primary purpose of the NCTC is to coordinate counter-terrorism efforts throughout the country, as the IB has been doing so far. It is for this reason that the NCTC has been located within the IB and not as a separate organization.

I have, however, noted your concerns about the manner in which the NCTC will function and am asking the Home Minister to address them suitably, in consultation with you and other Chief Ministers.

What's Next

Election 2014: The Road to 545 Seats

India’s national elections began April 7 and will continue on nine separate dates until May 12, with results expected to be announced on May 16.

The vote is the world’s largest, with 814 million eligible voters set to choose 543 members of the lower house of Parliament. The other two seats will be appointed by the president. This election is widely considered to be India’s most consequential since 1977.

In the final stage of a long decline, Hindustan Motors announced in May that it would suspend production of the Ambassador, a car that was once synonymous with style and status.Read more…

About

This report on India from the journalists of The New York Times and a pool of talented writers in India and beyond provides unbiased, authoritative reporting on the country and its place in the world. India Ink also strives to be a virtual meeting point for discussion of this complex, fast-changing democracy – its politics, economy, culture and everyday life.